ArticleCJC open2025
Postsurgical Temporary Epicardial Pacing: Electrophysiological Implications of Contemporary Pacing Lead Designs.
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advancements in postoperative temporary epicardial pacing leads, sensing malfunction can still happen. Oversensing presents as inappropriate inhibition of pacing (a major concern for pacemaker-dependent patients), whereas undersensing may lead to an extremely rare complication of ventricular fibrillation from R on T. The single-lead and dual-lead configurations have key structural differences related to the size of the bipole electrodes and the spacing between them. We assessed how this affects the sensing function. Methods: Five porcine studies were conducted using open chest and Langendorff models. We used 2 pacing wire configurations and compared the sensed electrograms. We compared a newer single-lead configuration (small, closely spaced electrodes) with a dual-lead (large, widely spaced) configuration. The primary outcome was the amplitude of the R wave. Secondary outcomes were the relative size of the T wave and the effect of sampling frequency and low-pass filtering. Results: The sensed QRS was significantly larger in the widely spaced, larger electrodes when compared with closely spaced, smaller electrodes across all sampling frequencies and filter settings (6.9-29.7 mV vs 1.7-8.6 mV, Conclusions: The smaller, closely spaced electrodes detect a relatively small QRS and a larger T wave, leading to a narrower safety window and an increased risk of sensing malfunction (Central Illustration). To avert catastrophic consequences, the electrophysiologic implications of new temporary pacing wires must be considered during postoperative care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.